Do alignments improve the gaming experience?

[pemerton]

I'd say it pretty clearly says you don't like their play style.

And?

Upthread, you said that choosing who to play with, on the basis of whether or not one would enjoy playing with them, was tantamount to policing them.

That is not true.

Now you're saying that choosing not to play with someone because one wouldn't enjoy it is saying that one wouldn't enjoy their playstyle.

That is true, but seems irrelevant. Telling someone that you don't enjoy playing with them is not policing them. Lots of people do things that I don't enjoy. And they're welcome to. I'm not stopping them. I'm just not doing it with them.

Upthread you have, multiple times, suggested that a player might play his/her "honourable" character as Brave, Brave Sir Robin. Now, I assume you realise that Brave, Brave Sir Robin - as presented by Monty Python - is a joke. So I assume that the player you're talking about is also playing in a comedic or otherwise over-the-top, ironic style. I don't mind small amounts of humour in the game - eg the backstory to the dwarf fighter PC that I have already set out upthread - but I mostly enjoy, and GM, a serious game. That means that I don't want to play with that comedic player. But s/he is welcome to find another group who want to play comedic D&D - I'm not stopping her.

(A different scenario would be where a player wants to play an honourable PC, but the game mechanics make that suicidal for the PC. Low-level classic D&D has this feature; low-level Rolemaster can also exhibit it. This is a case of mechanics/genre mis-match. One reason I enjoy GMing 4e is that it does not have this sort of problem.)

I'm not sure why the issue becomes such a personal one to you.

Because you and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] called me a hypocrite and implied I am a liar.

I am saying you can sincerely believe that your co-opting of the familiar fell within the rules of the game while others can sincerely believe it was not.

<snip>

it constituted the GM taking control of a player resource in a manner not provided for in the rules

Have you read the game rules?

The game rules specify that the GM may play the familiar with a "light touch". What is your basis for disputing that the player and I in question had established the relevant parameters of "light touch" between us?

The game rules also make it clear that resource depletion, including resource depletion that extends beyond the normal recovery period, is a standard consequence of skill challenge resolution. Which is what happened in the episode in question.

An astronomer and a flat-earther may have a disagreement about whether the earth is (roughly) spherical, but only one of those opinions is worth listening to, however sincerely both may be held.

Although my initial comments on the issue were not directed to rules legality anyway, but to the fact that you had removed a PC resource unilaterally

This is also incorrect. The loss of the resource was not unilateral. It was a component of action resolution within a skill challenge.

in the opinion of several posters, most of which have a better grasp of the 4e rules than I do

By "several" you mean "one". [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION].

the player was OK with you removing a character resource based on his behaviour. He chose to create a situation of conflict with Vecna which placed that character resource at risk. I wonder whether, had you been playing a traditional mechanical alignment game, he might not be OK with you removing a character resource which was contingent on maintaining a specific alignment, given his choice of character

Who knows? But that is not the case that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and I have expressed primary concern with. We have expressed concern with the case where the player believes that s/he is honouring the relevant ideals, and the GM takes a different view.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] - again I refuse to get into a rules debate with you. You have proven on many occasions that you are not interested in differing interpretations and will go to great lengths to rules lawyer any interpretation you do not agree with.

Needless to say I find this style of dming overly antagonistic and not conducive to the games I am interested in playing.

 

[Savage Wombat]

As an outside observer, I would like to say that I think it's been several pages now since anyone has said anything new regarding the topic, and I sense that everybody regularly posting in this thread is now more annoyed at the other poster or posters than honestly desiring to debate the subject. I say this as someone who does this himself from time to time.

May I suggest that the discussion might be ended at this point? Before anyone becomes uncivil and a mod gets involved?

 

[N'raac]

Because you and @Imaro called me a hypocrite and implied I am a liar.

I certainly did not intend to imply you were a liar. We clearly have different interpretations.

Have you read the game rules?

I have read all the rules that were cited in the discussion.

The game rules specify that the GM may play the familiar with a "light touch". What is your basis for disputing that the player and I in question had established the relevant parameters of "light touch" between us?

No one, to my knowledge, disagrees that you and your player were happy with the extent to which you were playing the familiar. To classify playing the familiar with a "light touch" means unilaterally activating it to oppose the PC interprets the phrase "light touch" in a manner I feel falls well outside the term. I would therefore say there was a departure from the rules which was, at worst, offensive to no one at the table and at least implicitly approved, if not expected and desired by the player in question. Not really that different from a pre-4e group deciding to play without alignment (I remain unclear whether your approach deviates from the 4e alignment rules, but it's not really relevant).

I also see shutting down the familiar in the manner done, and altering its recovery time, as a departure from the rules. I don't believe I was alone in that. Even if it was perfectly within the rules, I perceive it as removing access to a character resource based on character behaviour, which seems a much lower order of magnitude, but otherwise similar to a character falling from grace and losing character abilities indefinitely. You clarified, however, that you differentiated the two on the basis of whether the player believed the offense taken by the higher power was appropriate, so I see the basis for the difference. [ie the player believes the character honoured his ideals/the ideals of the higher power and the GM does not]

Any discussion of whether "the rules" were followed has a measure of uncertainty, as one of the rules of most RPG's is that the GM should interpret, modify and/or alter the rules if this will enhance the game, so by the RAW, we have the flexibility to depart from the RAW.

In any case, it's obviously an issue to which you have taken considerable offense, which I had neither anticipated nor intended, so I apologize for any manner in which you feel I slighted you.

@N'raac - again I refuse to get into a rules debate with you. You have proven on many occasions that you are not interested in differing interpretations and will go to great lengths to rules lawyer any interpretation you do not agree with.

Suit yourself. If someone wishes to cite the rules for use of torture in applying the intimidation skill, I'm interested in seeing these clear-cut rules the players would know. Otherwise, I believe that they, like me, likely would not now them. In any case:

As an outside observer, I would like to say that I think it's been several pages now since anyone has said anything new regarding the topic, and I sense that everybody regularly posting in this thread is now more annoyed at the other poster or posters than honestly desiring to debate the subject. I say this as someone who does this himself from time to time.

May I suggest that the discussion might be ended at this point? Before anyone becomes uncivil and a mod gets involved?

While I'm not seeing that lack of civility rear its head yet, I do agree that the last few pages seem more about "why I will not respond to your comments" than about any meaningful discussion, so I agree that the discussion appears to have run its course.

 

[pemerton]

To classify playing the familiar with a "light touch" means unilaterally activating it to oppose the PC interprets the phrase "light touch" in a manner I feel falls well outside the term.

I don't really see how your feeling as to what falls within or outside a rules term is relevant. If my players and I have established a workable application of the phrase to our game, on what basis are we breaking the rules?

I also see shutting down the familiar in the manner done, and altering its recovery time, as a departure from the rules.

In which case Mike Mearls departed from the rules when he wrote a skill challenge which could remove encounter powers for the rest of the adventure. And the monsters that can suck healing surges and encounter powers without them being expended by the player must be outside the rules too!

Or, alternatively, you are not familiar with 4e's basic scheme for resouces and mechanical consequences.

I perceive it as removing access to a character resource based on character behaviour

This describes the whole of D&D game play - players declare actions for their PCs, which can result in the loss of resources (eg hit points lost, gold pieces spent or stolen, etc).

Until you look at the particular adjudicative mechanicsm whereby a consequence ensued, I don't think you can say anything very meaningful about the nature and style of a particular episdoe of play.

I apologize for any manner in which you feel I slighted you.

Thank you.

 

[Bedrockgames]

As an outside observer, I would like to say that I think it's been several pages now since anyone has said anything new regarding the topic, and I sense that everybody regularly posting in this thread is now more annoyed at the other poster or posters than honestly desiring to debate the subject. I say this as someone who does this himself from time to time.

May I suggest that the discussion might be ended at this point? Before anyone becomes uncivil and a mod gets involved?

I would say you are indeed correct.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

As an outside observer, I would like to say that I think it's been several dozen pages now since anyone has said anything new regarding the topic, and I sense that everybody regularly posting in this thread is now more annoyed at the other poster or posters than honestly desiring to debate the subject. I say this as someone who does this himself from time to time.

May I suggest that the discussion might be ended at this point? Before anyone becomes uncivil and a mod gets involved?

Fixed that for you.

And thirded.

 

[Dannorn]

And lastly, there is the local perception of good / evil and law / chaos. Different mindsets might be considered evil somewhere or good somewhere else. In today's society anyone with a sword roaming the streets and killing wrong-doers would be definitely considered evil. In d&d settings, not necessarily. So, there is the need to describe in every setting what are the boundaries between those axes. This is not an easy task (and btw is up to the setting designers). And even if it was done, does this mean that in every single part of this world, all societies think alike? I really doubt if that might be the case. In practice, depending on the place or tribe he grew up (nevertheless in the same setting), a character might consider an action evil or absolutely necessary to serve good. Does this mean that when he travels he becomes evil because the place he is currently at perceives actions differently than him? Does a paladin smite murderers in town X but not in town W because in the first town society does not accept murder whereas in the second it is endorsed?

Odds are this has been brought up but while this may be true in the real world it falls short in D&D for the simple reason that Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos aren't just arbitrary constructs they're forces; channelable, measurable, tangible FACTS. While cultures may differ on what is acceptable the definitions of Good and Evil are written in the very fabric of the universe.

Charity is always a Good act though it may be committed with evil intent, and torture is always an Evil act, though it may be commuted with good intent and it is the DMs job to arbitrate whether an Evil act for a Good cause is Good or Evil on behalf of the universe and whether a shift in alignment or loss/change in abilities is warranted.

 

[Campbell]

What always frustrates me about these sorts of threads is how we often get so lost in the particular examples that come up. We expect a silver bullet - principles of gaming that will always work for any given group for every given situation. We eye people who have different principles of gaming for any hint of hypocrisy when the truth is there's a reason why they are principles rather than procedures. Actual play doesn't exist in some sort of platonic state. What will work for one group of people who have particular ways they view gaming with their own particular social dynamics does not necessarily work for a different group.

Sometimes the right call for a given situation may not even be consistent with your usual GMing principles. Something as simple as a given player being in a sour mood because they didn't do well on an exam or had a bad day at work might even gum up the works. Actual play is messy, but its where we actually live when we play.

I'll admit that earlier in this discussion I was getting pretty upset that when I made a point it would get thrown into the zeitgeist of "show them their principles are fundamentally flawed". When I talk about how alignment doesn't work for me I'm not arguing that it doesn't serve a purpose for anyone. I'm not going to get caught up in trying to tell people how they should approach the hobby.

We approach things in fundamentally different ways as has been seen in thread after thread. I'm not even going to attempt to put labels on things because by now we should tend to have a general sense on how all of us approach things. I would just hope in the future that we could at least make the attempt to address each other where we live. Obviously it does little good to address [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] with an example that assumes player decisions should have a one to one correspondence with character decisions.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]. Well said sir. And kudos for avoiding labels. Wish I had done that.